Imperial Parliament

The Illustrated London News,
vol. 44,
no. 1255,
p. 414.

April 30, 1864

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

...HOUSE OF COMMONS.--Friday,
April 22.

...Outrage On A British Subject.--Lord R. Cecil said he wished to put a question to
the Under-Secretary for the Foreign Department relative to an outrage
on a British subject on the Northern coast of America. He wished to
know whether any information had been received by the Foreign Office
on the subject, and, if so, what steps had been taken.--Mr. Layard said information had been received
similar to that which had appeared in the public press. Correspondence
had been going on between her Majesty's Government and the United
States Government, and redress had been demanded for the outrage...

HOUSE OF LORDS.--Tuesday.

...The Tuscaloosa.--Lord Chelmsford called the attention of their
Lordships to the mode in which the Government proposed to deal with
prizes brought by the belligerent Powers of America into ports within
her Majesty's dominions, as described in the correspondence presented
to Parliament with respect to the Tuscaloosa. The noble Lord condemned
the course of procedure contemplated as most objectionable and
dangerous, and totally opposed to the comity of nations.--Earl Russell observed that the law of nations
required that prizes captured at sea should be legally condemned in
the prize courts of the captors; but the Confederates had no power to
take prizes into their own ports on account of the Federal blockade--a
circumstance which rendered the present war altogether anomalous. He
contended that the captain of a belligerent cruiser had no right to
put guns on board her and claim to have her treated as a commissioned
ship of war. If that could be done, the Confederate cruisers might
dispose of every one of their prizes in her Majesty's ports, and this
would have the effect of at once violating the Royal proclamation and
the neutrality of the country. In his opinion the Government were
bound to regard the Tuscaloosa as an uncondemned prize; but the law
officers of the Crown felt that under all the circumstances of the
case it would have been sufficient to warn her off. He denied that the
Government had truckled to Federal menaces and threats, and asserted
that whatever demands Ministers had made upon the Federal Government
had been promptly and fairly attended to.--After a short discussion
the subject dropped...

HOUSE OF COMMONS.--Thursday.

American Affairs.--Sir G. Grey, in reply to Mr. Hopwood, said it was
not the intention of the Government to propose a conference of
European Powers on American affairs; that there was no ground for
making such a proposal, as they were certain that the United States
Government would not concur in it...

The Tuscaloosa.

On the order of the day for going into Committee of Supply,

Mr. Peacock called attention to the case
of the Confederate vessel Tuscaloosa, and the instructions to seize
her contained in the despatch of the colonial officer to the Governor
of the Cape of Good Hope, dated the 4th of November last, and which he
held were a weak concession to the menaces and demands of the United
States. The hon. member argued, from the dicta of Sir W. Scott and
other learned jurists on questions of international law, that the
Tuscaloosa was sufficiently clothed with the character of a man-of-war
to exempt her from seizure under the Queen's Proclamation, and that
the commander of the Alabama, who had captured her and converted her
into a Confederate cruiser, had as much right to commission her in
that capacity as a commodore. He charged the Government with cowardice
in evading the responsibility that rested only on themselves and
endeavouring to cast it upon the shoulders of Sir P. Wodehouse. He
complained that the instructions of November remained virtually
unrepealed, and called upon the House to demand their recall; for, if
we enforced them against one Power, we were bound to enforce them
against another; if we acted upon them in the case of a weak Power, we
must likewise do so in the case of a strong Power. Supposing, then, we
applied them against a strong Power, the result must be to plunge the
country into war; and if against a weak Power, it would cover the
country with intolerable shame. It was in the interest of peace that
he invited the House to assist in obtaining a revocation of those
instructions, for as long as they stood unrepealed they were at once a
source of danger and disgrace. In conclusion, the hon. member moved
that the instructions contained in the despatch of the Duke of
Newcastle, dated the 4th of November, 1863, and which remained still
unrevoked, were at variance with the principles of international
law.

The Solicitor-General, in resisting the
motion, observed that at present we were neutrals, but the day might
arrive when we should become belligerents, exercising belligerent
rights; and when we again exercised those rights it might be that
another armed neutrality would be formed against us. It behoved the
House, therefore, to think well before they furnished such an armed
neutrality with weapons forged by ourselves. The question was, whether
the Tuscaloosa, when she entered Simon's Bay, was still a prize to the
Alabama or had lost that character of a vessel of war. There was no
disputing that she was a prize, that she had not been taken into any
port of the Confederate States, for the purpose of being adjudicated
upon; and the evidence showed, moreover, that her supposed conversion
into a Confederate ship of war was a mere sham and pretence. Sir
B. Walker had no doubt about her real character from the first; but he
was overruled by the opinion of the Attorney-General of the Cape. In
his (the Solicitor-General's) opinion there was no doubt but that she
was a prize of war, and that her supposed conversion into a
Confederate cruiser was a mere plan and pretence.

Mr. Whiteside contended that we had
shamefully violated our alleged neutrality, as there could be no doubt
whatever but that the Tuscaloosa was lawfully converted into a tender
to the Alabama, that her Commander had a legal commission, and that we
had no right whatever to detain her. If the Tuscaloosa had been a
prize of the Alabama instead of her tender she ought to have been
warned off, but under no circumstance was her seizure to be
justified.

After a lengthened debate, which was chiefly confined to the
members of the legal profession, the House divided, when Mr. Peacock's
motion was defeated by a majority of 219 to 185.